Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Grading of scientific evidence (5)

From: Rome consensus conference - statement; human papilloma virus diseases in males

Grading Definitions
1++ High quality meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with a very low risk of bias
1+ Well conducted meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with a low risk of bias
1– Meta-analyses, systematic reviews or RCTs, or RCTs with a high risk of bias
2++ High quality systematic reviews of case–control or cohort studies or high quality case–control or cohort studies with a very low risk of confounding, bias, or chance and a high probability that the relationship is causal
2+ Well conducted case–control or cohort studies with a low risk of confounding, bias, or chance and a moderate probability that the relationship is causal
2– Case–control or cohort studies with a high risk of confounding, bias, or chance and a significant risk that the relationship is not causal
3 Non­analytic studies, eg case reports, case series
4 Expert opinion
  1. RCT Randomized and Controlled Trials.